Look, if the root cause for crime remains, conceal carry may deter criminals in the short term, but it will most likely promote an escalation on the long term.

Personally I see a lot of oversimplification on the subject. I don't think guns are the root of all evils nor THE solution.

And it has being said before also, the fear factor in the US really doesn't help, the level of crime in the US is several times lower than some nations with lower firearm deaths per 100.000 habitants.[/quote]

BINGO!

However, when it comes to crime prevention, I would rather be armed and not a victim than unarmed and not having a choice.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession. (Ok, here is the lie. "spray firing" is inaccurate. VERY inaccurate. If sprayfiring was a military technique I am sure we would have covered it in some point of my military career. Actually, I would have been smacked upside the head and told to stop wasting bullets.)

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. How many bullets a gun holds has nothing to do with its lethality. If you shoot five hundred bullets and dont hit anything, your lethality is zero.

A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. Ok, or maybe you just want a rifle you can carry in your car or through heavy brush without a long gun getting in your way.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A flash supressor does hide the flash. But that is it. It doesnt do much for barrel climb compensation.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. Silencers are not completely illegal. And if you have the proper licence, you can own a silencer. Although why you would want to is beyond me. They only work for a few shots.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. (When was the last time gang members had a drive by bayonetting?)

THe reason why I put this in here is that the antigun websites post blatant untruths as facts. As a matter of fact, they are similiar to creationist websites, as they take a tiny grain of truth and expand into absurdity.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

I will show a snip from the Brady website. Everything untrue I will highlight and counter.

I agree some of them are rubbish, some are based on overhyping the risks, but some are reasonable comments, e.g. the magazine issue. if you are sufficently unskilled hunter that can not bring down a target with less than 8 rounds you either suck or you are using the wrong weapon. the only concivable uses for a larger magazine are hurting people or 'really fucking fun range firing' the later of which you should be easily be able to get a licence for if you are not a criminal.

e.g. the NZ law states a military style semi automatic is:
An M.S.S.A. is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following
features:
â€¢ Folding or telescopic butt
â€¢ Magazine of more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
â€¢ Magazine of more than 7 cartridges for others
â€¢ Bayonet lug
â€¢ Free standing military style pistol grip
â€¢ Flash suppressor.
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firea ... s-code.pdfsilencers are also illegal

the biggy is:
You will need a permit from the police to obtain one of these firearms and most cases it is 'here Mister Police Man this here is my hunting rifle I use for controlling pests on the back 40. Notice the folding butt, notice that it is mearly a hunting rifle with this feature added.' Policeman 'here you go, you fine upstanding citizen'

Capellini wrote:If an individual can't be bothered to wait long enough for a background check to get a gun, and can't be bothered to prove they know how to use it safely, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE.

if an individual can't be bothered to wait long enough for a background check to get a gun, and can't be bothered to prove they know how to use it safely, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO STOP THEM FROM GETTING THE GUN ILLEGALLY!

That's a different issue. Legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership are two different things. I think it should be harder for people who SHOULDN'T have a gun to own one legally. Dealing with then keeping them from getting it illegally is the second prong. It starts with, 'where do the illegal guns come from'?

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

Capellini wrote:If an individual can't be bothered to wait long enough for a background check to get a gun, and can't be bothered to prove they know how to use it safely, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE.

if an individual can't be bothered to wait long enough for a background check to get a gun, and can't be bothered to prove they know how to use it safely, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO STOP THEM FROM GETTING THE GUN ILLEGALLY!

That's a different issue. Legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership are two different things. I think it should be harder for people who SHOULDN'T have a gun to own one legally. Dealing with then keeping them from getting it illegally is the second prong. It starts with, 'where do the illegal guns come from'?

I agree. But as I showed you earlier, most illegal guns are obtained through illegal means. If a person with a clean record obtains a gun for a criminal, they committed a crime. When you purchase a gun, you fill out a form that is kept on file at the gun dealers. This form outlines and has a place to initial that you understand that obtaining weapons for a person who is otherwise unauthorized to possess firearms is a federal crime punishable up to fifteen years in federal prison.

I am anxious to see how more limits on LEGAL firearms will alter the flow of ILLEGAL firearms.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

LibraLabRat wrote:This had the unintended unfortunate side-effect of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals, since such individuals getting off airplanes invariably were not carrying concealed, unlike large numbers of residents.

Sounds like a charming place. Provided you have a gun to defend yourself. Even so, I think I'll be taking my vacations somewhere else.

LibraLabRat wrote:This had the unintended unfortunate side-effect of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals, since such individuals getting off airplanes invariably were not carrying concealed, unlike large numbers of residents.

Sounds like a charming place. Provided you have a gun to defend yourself. Even so, I think I'll be taking my vacations somewhere else.

I guess that is that world famous British "stiff upper lip" courage I have heard about....How did you guys manage to conquer so much of the world with attitudes like that?

As someone else pointed out earlier, tourists have ALWAYS been a target for crime. Someone in a rental car with a noticeable accent is either a tourist or a drug smuggler. And you can guess that the drug smuggler is gonna be armed.

So where are you going to vacation without crime?

Swindon? Wiltshire? Cornwall?

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

Based on the reading and reporting I'd been exposed to in England (and the American TV Series also), when I first landed in America (Minneapolis in 1979) I more than half expected to be mugged twice between the airplane and Baggage Claim, and then shot by a policeman as I ran for a bus!

Laughing in the rain.
Dancing in the desert sand,
Somersaults through life.

I know you feel strongly about guns and I had not intended to annoy you. Being a naive and sentimental old fool I was hoping to lighten the tone a little. But since you ask:

LibraLabRat wrote:How did you guys manage to conquer so much of the world with attitudes like that?

AFAIK, our conquests were achieved by using massively superior force of arms to slaughter anyone who tried to stop us. For example, from here:

On September 2, 1898, the Khalifa committed his 52,000-man army to a frontal assault against the Anglo-Egyptian force, which was massed on the plain outside Omdurman. The outcome never was in doubt, largely because of superior British firepower. During the five-hour battle, about 11,000 Mahdists died whereas AngloEgyptian losses amounted to 48 dead and fewer than 400 wounded.

We occasionally show stiff upper lip courage that borders on insanity, like in the charge of the Light Brigade. But when we go on vacation, we tend to avoid places where:

Someone in a rental car with a noticeable accent is either a tourist or a drug smuggler. And you can guess that the drug smuggler is gonna be armed.

... or at least, I do. Though I admit Rio was pretty hairy.

LibraLabRat wrote:So where are you going to vacation without crime?

I don't know anywhere without crime. Cornwall is nice. I believe Wiltshire is nice too. Here are some other places I've enjoyed visiting without a gun:

I was trying to be a smart ass. A Martini-Henry rifle that was used in the Zulu wars is one piece I would give my left arm above the elbow for, as is the Webley .455, and my favorite gun in my current collection is the .303 British Enfield Mk5 No.1 jungle rifle.

As far as crime....I have been acosted by Americans in Korea, Germany I almost got mugged by Turks (I never knew they made knives that size). I have learned that where you go is as important how you carry yourself.

As far as concealed carry, here is how I feel. Cops cannot be everywhere at once, and fender benders do not turn into gun battles. As a matter of fact, every time I get pulled over for a ticket, I am sure to tell the officer that I have a gun in the glove box and if he wouldnt mind I would keep my hands outside the window while he checked my papers. Politeness keeps you from getting shot.

Now, as far as guns preventing crime, I have seen better studies that show that criminals avoid potential victims who may be armed. I would rather keep the bastards guessing. Also, I get involved. If I see someone getting attacked, I intervene.

Too many Americans just walk on by.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

All of the legal solutions proposed and in effect (though you all seem to feel that enforcement is feeble at best) have a fatal flaw: Somebody has to be victimized before the law can take effect. This is not the end of the world in the case of theft of insured goods. But where lives or, less dramatically, where well-being and health are at stake, better to err on the side of safety. If you're "in a situation" as one American soldier I worked with used to call it (he had funny euphemisms for a lot of things, most of which are unmentionable in company), statistics are quite irrelevant and the pending prosecution promised by power is really no comfort to losing your knee (the criminal shot you in the knee because he knows it's easier to get aquitted that way if caught than if he shot you in a location deemed lethal), or your chastity.
The common argument on the gun issue usually consists of hurling statistical proofs coupled with applied logic on a very theoretical basis. Anyone who has ever fallen victim to an armed criminal can tell you, that when his/her life was flashing before his/her eyes, the statistics were, well, statistics and quite removed from the reality of the experience. Excuse the comparison, but it's like those guys on the American Airlines flight who fought back against the hijackers on 9/11. Geopolitical considerations and the benefit of the country probably lost all significance in the moment leading up to their heroic demise.
I make this comparison in light of something the Bush administration (not well received in this forum I daresay) realized in the months following the attack which bears heavily on the subject of guns and crime: law that only takes effect after the crime is limited as a deterrent.
Preemption is the only responsible policy that an individual can entertain. If you don't want to carry a weapon, at least get over your fear of them adn familiarize yourself. Jsut because 25% of the internet is porn doesn't mean you have to shut it out of your lives, and just because guns are not the ideal solution to any conflict (except perhaps close encounters with Bin Laden) is no excuse to ignore their impact and benefits.

Okapi wrote:All of the legal solutions proposed and in effect (though you all seem to feel that enforcement is feeble at best) have a fatal flaw: Somebody has to be victimized before the law can take effect. This is not the end of the world in the case of theft of insured goods. But where lives or, less dramatically, where well-being and health are at stake, better to err on the side of safety. If you're "in a situation" as one American soldier I worked with used to call it (he had funny euphemisms for a lot of things, most of which are unmentionable in company), statistics are quite irrelevant and the pending prosecution promised by power is really no comfort to losing your knee (the criminal shot you in the knee because he knows it's easier to get aquitted that way if caught than if he shot you in a location deemed lethal), or your chastity. The common argument on the gun issue usually consists of hurling statistical proofs coupled with applied logic on a very theoretical basis. Anyone who has ever fallen victim to an armed criminal can tell you, that when his/her life was flashing before his/her eyes, the statistics were, well, statistics and quite removed from the reality of the experience. Excuse the comparison, but it's like those guys on the American Airlines flight who fought back against the hijackers on 9/11. Geopolitical considerations and the benefit of the country probably lost all significance in the moment leading up to their heroic demise.I make this comparison in light of something the Bush administration (not well received in this forum I daresay) realized in the months following the attack which bears heavily on the subject of guns and crime: law that only takes effect after the crime is limited as a deterrent.Preemption is the only responsible policy that an individual can entertain. If you don't want to carry a weapon, at least get over your fear of them adn familiarize yourself. Jsut because 25% of the internet is prawn doesn't mean you have to shut it out of your lives, and just because guns are not the ideal solution to any conflict (except perhaps close encounters with Bin Laden) is no excuse to ignore their impact and benefits.

HELL YEAH! And as a current soldier, I try to keep the euphemisms and achronyms at a minimum in here.

Israelis have a very different view on guns, since everyone ( women included) get military training and live with and work with guns and the threat of very real violence on a daily basis.

I have been in the situation before. And believe me, there are times when I wonder what would have happened if instead of running away, the intruders in my home would have responded with "F*** you, you aint gonna shoot me!"

My main concern is the fact that I had chosen the wrong weapons because they were closest. My single shot shotgun is only good for one shot, and there were probably two intruders. This is why I now keep my 9mm next to the bed, with 10 shots.

Emergency tools are just that. For Emergency only. YOu keep a fire alarm in your house, wear seatbelts, and keep a fire extinguisher and keep a carbon monoxide detector. Why not keep a gun around the house for defense?

And finally, in an instance where someone is being attacked and I am not armed....well, I have had more than a little unarmed combat training. In the Army we refer to it as combat drills. I believe your average person would call it "dirty fighting."

I have already begun teaching my daughters how to get away from a larger attacker if unarmed ( and believe me, as soon as they are old enough to be legally armed, they will be).

Ladies, I do urge you to take unarmed as well as armed self defense. No sense in letting a rapist or mugger have an easy time of it.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow